WFD and Payments for Water ServicesAndrew Walker – Yorkshire Water
Issues to addressa)opportunities to meet WFD requirements at reasonable cost a) Whose cost – Taxpayer/ Polluter/ Water Services Customer b) Whose responsibility – EA/ Polluter/ Society/ Water Services Customer c) Whose benefit – Environment/ climate/ society/ Landowners – or is it seen as a benefit? d) Reward for stopping damaging practice, or enforcement through Article 7? e) Running the YWS Estate in an open, honest, balanced way f) Sustainable solutions must be that – not optimised for one beneficiary to detriment of othersb)barriers to this – including policy issues a) Recognising the need to change – climate change, historic management of peatlands b) Making markets for services real, and the rewards attractive – CAP/ HLS c) Understanding the science – filling in the gaps d) Taking a holistic view, from source to sea e) Pollution offsetting – global markets – how do we get round these issues?c)suggestions and policy recommendations/ actions needed from others a) Review current designations for Uplands – SSSI’s for Carbon? b) identifying future threats to peatlands – climate change/ renewables
Why Change? – Boltby Reservoir 20/06/2005
Askwith Moor 23/06/2009
River Wharfe 24/06/2009 – 30 miles like this
What do we need from our Peatlands?
Resilience to Climate Change is essential
Keep Peat where it belongs
What can the past tell us about the future?1500 years continuous presence of sphagnum – missing for the last 150 years plusWater tables much more variable now – previously more stable and protected the peatPeatlands can survive climatic events (Little Ice Age, Middle Ages, Wildfires ) but only if they’re healthyMonocultures and intensive management of Calluna can damage peatlands and stop the future building of peat (impacts carbon storage & sequestration)Peat forming species can come back if you provide the right conditionsClimate change suggests peatlands at risk now – need to act fast to protect what we have
The Ecosystem Services ApproachComparison with the change X - Pessimistic Y - Central Z - Optimistic from Baseline A 1. Trendline B Baseline A Baseline A Status quo 5% increase in DOC Continued deterioration Continued deterioration -£49,932 £0 £0 MIEX AMP7 Miex AMP7 Miex AMP7 Inc opex £5m £5m 2. Trendline D Trendline C Trendline B Free Market 50% increase in DOC 30% increase in DOC 5% increase inDOC -£2,772,242 -£2,593,538 -£1,049,932 Miex AMP6 Miex AMP6 Miex AMP7 Inc opex Lesser inc opex Inc opex 3. Baseline A Trendline E Trendline F Balanced intervention Continued deterioration 15% decrease in DOC PLATEAU by 2020 £0 £2,794,533 £3,938,251 Miex AMP7 Miex AMP9 No Miex £5m
Theoretical catchment colour output at an average upland works for different land management scenarios over the next 25 years 250 A B C D E F Design envelope Point at which a capital treatment solution will be required 200 150Hazen 130 100 50 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year (based on AMPs)
Conclusions• Land management interventions to change peat hydrology havethe potential to deliver significant benefits.• The interventions for water quality are compatible with activitiesthat will also benefit biodiversity.• The valuation process has had to be simplified and must becarefully interpreted.• The exercise is based on one small catchment in the SouthPennines Region but could be transferred to other uplandcatchments with similar characteristics.
Taking responsibility for thewater environment for good
Excellent catchments,rivers and coasts“We maintain and improve the waterenvironment from source to sea andinfluence others to do the same”.